6.  The applicant was born in 1939 and lives in Bratislava.
7.  The inhabitants of the house in which the applicant lives asked the owner of the house to transfer to them the ownership of the respective flats pursuant to the Flat and Other Premises Ownership Act of 1993. The administrator of the house, the Bratislava - Staré mesto municipality, proposed to sell the flats to the inhabitants. However, it excluded the loft from the sales contracts as it envisaged selling it to a third person who planned to build new flats there. Subsequently the following relevant facts occurred and decisions were taken.
8.  On 4 November 1998 the applicant and nine other inhabitants challenged the validity of the construction contract concluded between the municipality Bratislava - Staré mesto and the company RAFT, s.r.o. concerning the construction of flats at the roof level of the house in which the plaintiffs lived.
9.  On 11 July 2001 the President of the Bratislava I District Court informed the applicant that the judge dealing with the case had a heavy workload and that she had therefore not yet started examining the case.
10.  On 18 October 2002 the Bratislava I District Court declared the contract void. The defendants appealed. The proceedings are pending before the Bratislava Regional Court.
11.  On 23 July 1999 the applicant and the other inhabitants of the house claimed that the Bratislava I District Court should deliver a judgment replacing the declaration of intent of the Bratislava - Staré mesto municipality and permitting the transfer of ownership of the flats, including the loft, to them under the Flats and Other Premises Ownership Act of 1993. The plaintiffs claimed that the defendant municipality had failed to comply with its statutory obligation to do so.
12.  On 4 November 1999 the plaintiffs submitted further information at the court’s request.
13.  On 28 February 2000 the District Court discontinued the proceedings on the ground that the action was incomplete.
14.  The plaintiffs appealed and the Bratislava Regional Court, on 25 May 2000, quashed the first instance decision.
15.  The appellate court’s decision was served in June 2000. On 1 February 2001 the District Court requested the defendant to submit comments on the action.
16.  On 10 May 2001 the applicant submitted further information at the District Court’s request.
17.  On 26 November 2002 the Bratislava I District Court dismissed the action. It noted that several plaintiffs had already concluded purchase contracts in respect of their apartments and that in the draft contracts attached to their action the plaintiffs proposed to buy the apartments from a person other than the defendant.
18.  On 5 February 2003 the applicant and the other plaintiffs appealed.
19.  On 9 September 2003 the Bratislava Regional Court upheld the first instance judgment concluding that the plaintiffs had failed to comply with the relevant statutory requirements.
20.  On 31 August 2001 the Constitutional Court found that the applicant’s constitutional right to a hearing without undue delay had been violated by the Bratislava I District Court in both the above sets of proceedings. It held that the District Court had failed to proceed with the cases in an appropriate manner as a result of which there had been unjustified delays in the proceedings. As regards the proceedings concerning the sale of the apartments in particular, the Constitutional Court held that the District Court had remained inactive for a period of 7 months between 16 June 2000 and 1 February 2001.
21.  At the moment of delivery of its finding the Constitutional Court lacked power to provide redress to plaintiffs whose right to a hearing within a reasonable time had been violated (for further details see, e.g., Švolík v. Slovakia, no. 51545/99, §§ 24-28, 15 February 2005).